220 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 30 May 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

Some weapons can go both ways, yes, but most are primarily or exclusively one of the other.

LRM's are primarily an indirect-fire weapon with the ability to fire directly (if the target is too close for the missiles to start their upward arc). For an weapon to classify as a duel-wielder, it has to be equally effective in both roles. A howitzer can do that (it is just as lethal up close as it is far away). LRM's however, since you need to get in close in order to hit a target directly (before they start their upward arcs), can you truthfully claim that LRM's are equally effective in both roles (up close and far away)?

Starting to split hairs there.

We both know the answer is no because of other mechanics built into the game that purposely weaken LRMs at close range. IS won't do damage at less than 180 and clans have reduced damage. Take those factors out and the answer is they are equally effective with the only real variable being target speed since the faster a target goes the less likely the missiles are to track before impact.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

No, they do not go to their target in a straight horizontal path like a gauss round. They go in a parabolic arc between 20-90 degrees. Once they are 100-200 meters above the battlefield they home in following their guidance system. That is indirect not direct.

I think your arc numbers are off for indirect fire. 45 degrees is still ballistic arc territory providing maximum range. Past 45 you get into significant drop at the end of the flight path. Which is basically how a howitzer works.

Which means sometimes the LRMs are firing directly when they stay under a 45 degree arc and sometimes they fire indirectly when they go past the 45 degree point. The simple fact the missile tubes are mounted level with the marching surface shows they take off going flat and then the round guidance curves it up and arcs it toward the target. It's fired directly and then can take an indirect path to the target depending on range/distance/etc.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

I think your arc numbers are off for indirect fire. 45 degrees is still ballistic arc territory providing maximum range. Past 45 you get into significant drop at the end of the flight path. Which is basically how a howitzer works.

Which means sometimes the LRMs are firing directly when they stay under a 45 degree arc and sometimes they fire indirectly when they go past the 45 degree point. The simple fact the missile tubes are mounted level with the marching surface shows they take off going flat and then the round guidance curves it up and arcs it toward the target. It's fired directly and then can take an indirect path to the target depending on range/distance/etc.

No, anything between 20-45 degrees is still a parabolic arc i.e. ballistic trajectory which makes it indirect. Incorrect on how they are mounted since the models are not correct. The tubes should be between 20-90 degrees offset from the horizontal as per the weapon description.

I take it you never did artillery, missiles, or anything related to those fields in the military. I'll take Jep's word over yours any day of the week when it comes to direct fire vs. indirect fire.

[Ruar]

You do realize bullets travel a ballistic path and are direct fire weapons. Shooters use ballistic tables when doing long range shooting. You use 45 degrees to get the maximum flight time for a bullet in fact. Anything launched between 20 and 45 degrees is direct fire. 46 degree is where indirect fire kicks in.

http://www.physicscl.../vectors/mr.cfm

And Jep agrees with what I'm saying.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

You do realize bullets travel a ballistic path and are direct fire weapons. Shooters use ballistic tables when doing long range shooting. You use 45 degrees to get the maximum flight time for a bullet in fact. Anything launched between 20 and 45 degrees is direct fire. 46 degree is where indirect fire kicks in.

http://www.physicscl.../vectors/mr.cfm

And Jep agrees with what I'm saying.

And he said that they are indirect weapons. The write up of the weapon says it is indirect fire, so you are arguing against FASA and Catalyst Games. This is what LRMs are.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

And he said that they are indirect weapons. The write up of the weapon says it is indirect fire, so you are arguing against FASA and Catalyst Games. This is what LRMs are.

The howitzer.. is it a direct fire weapon or an indirect fire weapon?

Hmm... how do you categorize a weapon capable of doing both?

[Ted Wayz]

Give it up guys, no one is buying what you are selling.

It is really beginning to look sad these pathetic attempts to regain dignity. But please, use your direct line to Russ...aka twitter...to say whatever about missiles despite the total lack of support or historical evidence. You will get the expected response.

But can someone please answer a question for me. Since when did objectivity and moderation become mutually exclusive?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

The howitzer.. is it a direct fire weapon or an indirect fire weapon?

Hmm... how do you categorize a weapon capable of doing both?

I categorize it like the military does which is dual purpose as it can be traversed to a horizontal position depending upon the model of the howitzer. Some howitzers cannot traverse, so they are indirect fire only. It takes some work to get them fire horizontally and it's not accurate either.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

We both know the answer is no because of other mechanics built into the game that purposely weaken LRMs at close range. IS won't do damage at less than 180 and clans have reduced damage. Take those factors out and the answer is they are equally effective with the only real variable being target speed since the faster a target goes the less likely the missiles are to track before impact.

Take those factors out? How can we? Since when can we switch LRM's to do full damage up close? That is not possible. I am talking about what they can do, not what they cannot do.

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

You do realize bullets travel a ballistic path and are direct fire weapons. Shooters use ballistic tables when doing long range shooting. You use 45 degrees to get the maximum flight time for a bullet in fact. Anything launched between 20 and 45 degrees is direct fire. 46 degree is where indirect fire kicks in.

http://www.physicscl.../vectors/mr.cfm

And Jep agrees with what I'm saying.

Not quite. I simply agreed with part of what you were saying. Nothing more.

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

The howitzer.. is it a direct fire weapon or an indirect fire weapon?

Hmm... how do you categorize a weapon capable of doing both?

Howitzers are indirect-fire weapons that have the ability to direct-fire their rounds. Simple as that.

I forgot to ask. What are your credentials regarding ballistics? I was a marine mortarman that operated the 81mm mortar and whether I could see my target or not, every round I sent downrange was indirect-fire. It is pretty much impossible to direct-fire a mortar. So, how about you?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 30 May 2017 - 07:17 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

guys guys we are getting off Track,

ok in MWO,
Direct Fire(LOS) = Having LOS on a Target and Firing at a Target you can See,
Indirect Fire = Locking onto a Target you dont have LOS on, and being able to Fire on it,

LRMs can Fire with Direct Fire, as Artemis says, it Needs LOS to Gain its Spread Reduction,
this Reduction can not be received when Firing Indirectly, that said LRM must then have a Direct Fire mode,

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

guys guys we are getting off Track,

ok in MWO,
Direct Fire(LOS) = Having LOS on a Target and Firing at a Target you can See,
Indirect Fire = Locking onto a Target you dont have LOS on, and being able to Fire on it,

LRMs can Fire with Direct Fire, as Artemis says, it Needs LOS to Gain its Spread Reduction,
this Reduction can not be received when Firing Indirectly, that said LRM must then have a Direct Fire mode,

This was pretty much my point.

And yeah, I was done with that conversation. My credentials don't matter one bit because I'm able to research all kinds of information I may or may not have had personal experience with.

[KekistanWillRiseAgain]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

No, he said you don't get the penalties if you have C3. We all have C3, so no penalties to simulate.
Not that using TT as a balancing factor isn't always terrible.


Why would they not just get a buff? Everyone knows it needs it. Other underperforming weapon systems got buffs without a nerf. The spread reduction of LRM20 was without a nerf.
But if we should buff something, it should be the place where it's lacking: indirect fire. Then you can nerf it somewhere where it has plenty, like range.

That is actually a double Buff in practice... take away Range that the terribad LRM user should not be firing from anyways. It is one of the things that annoys me about the Clan tonnage drop to 50T in Scouting, It in practical terms was a Buff. It got them out of those terrible Streakcrows that my GRN-2N would eat for lunch and into cSPL Novas or cSPL HBK-IICs... by taking away bad options you make it better overall. I wish they had hammered the LRM Range even further than just 900m in the Skill Maze, dropped it down to 700m would have made a drastic improvement of LRM playstyle & effectiveness overall.

[Jep Jorgensson]

KekistanWillRiseAgain, on 30 May 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

That is actually a double Buff in practice... take away Range that the terribad LRM user should not be firing from anyways. It is one of the things that annoys me about the Clan tonnage drop to 50T in Scouting, It in practical terms was a Buff. It got them out of those terrible Streakcrows that my GRN-2N would eat for lunch and into cSPL Novas or cSPL HBK-IICs... by taking away bad options you make it better overall. I wish they had hammered the LRM Range even further than just 900m in the Skill Maze, dropped it down to 700m would have made a drastic improvement of LRM playstyle & effectiveness overall.

Which would therefore force PGI to nerf MRM's even more than they already have before they are even released. Besides, if they nerfed LRM range to its TT levels, then they would have to do it for EVERY weapon (make their current optimal ranges their new max ranges) and nobody wants that.

It is ironic how so many people can say both that LRM's are useless and should not be used but then say that they need to be nerfed. Hypocrite much?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 30 May 2017 - 09:01 PM.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 30 May 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

Which would therefore force PGI to nerf MRM's even more than they already have before they are even released. Besides, if they nerfed LRM range to its TT levels, then they would have to do it for EVERY weapon (make their current optimal ranges their new max ranges) and nobody wants that.

It is ironic how so many people can say both that LRM's are useless and should not be used but then say that they need to be nerfed. Hypocritre much?

Not ironic since lrms are usually very strong or almost worthless. Target in the open while moving positions shows how strong lrms can be with the target dieing quickly. Target using cover, ams, radar dep and lrms have almost zero value. There is very little room between those two extremes.

Which means lrms need both a buff and nerf at the same time. Alternately change the mechanics so lrms are more consistent without being overpowered.

Edited by Ruar, 30 May 2017 - 10:00 PM.

[LORD ORION]

Normalize lrms

Reload = 6 (all)
Speed = 850
Range = 180-630

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 10:00 PM, said:

Not ironic since lrms are usually very strong or almost worthless. Target in the open while moving positions shows how strong lrms can be with the target dieing quickly. Target using cover, ams, radar dep and lrms have almost zero value. There is very little room between those two extremes.

Which means lrms need both a buff and nerf at the same time. Alternately change the mechanics so lrms are more consistent without being overpowered.

Buffed and then nerfed... ... ...? That makes no sense. You must be the kind if guy that eats soup with a knife.

LORD ORION, on 30 May 2017 - 10:25 PM, said:

Normalize lrms

Reload = 6 (all)
Speed = 850
Range = 180-630

A tier 1 player afraid of LRM's...? Okay... In case you missed it: "If they nerfed LRM range to its TT levels, then they would have to do it for EVERY weapon (make their current optimal ranges their new max ranges) and nobody wants that." Are you saying you want the current ranges for ALL weapon systems to become their new max ranges?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 30 May 2017 - 10:55 PM.

[Helene de Montfort]

i think it would be easier to remove the tracking while shortening the flight time

[Guile Votoms]

Give them massive spread and low velocity when they're used with regular locks.
Massively buff Narc, Tag and Artemis.
Done.

The main problem of LRMs is that they promote a bad playstyle; the backseat assault lurmboat.

If you make LRMs weak with regular locks but powerful with a proper spotter or self-held locks,
players will either drop the playstyle completely or adapt and become decent players.

I've played Narcers for a while but no one cares. They just take whatever lock they see.

And yes, I know that LRMs are not a reliable weapon and it's a gamble to use them without a dedicated spotter,
but as long as puggers can get 1000+ damage without Narc, Tag and Artemis in 1 out of 5 matches, nothing will change.

[Vellron2005]

OK, so I voted NO on the poll to make LRM's more usefull in direct fire and less effective for indirect fire..

Here's why:

The primary point and use for LRM's is INDIRECT fire.. that is the whole "shtick" with LRMs.. take that away, and you basically get MRMs or SRMs..

Plus, LRMs, when indirectly fired, are used for battlefield control.. so taking that away.. again.. taking away their soul..

People who cry about LRMs simply refuse to accept that MWO is not COD or Unreal Tournament.. it's not all about direct fire, "shove a shotgun in his gut and splatter him" play.. In fact, it's exactly LRMs that make MWO "a thinking man's shooter".. you have to THINK about what you're doing, what you're bringing and how you're playing..

They are what gives us the impression of a modern, realistic battlefield, at least to some small degree (if it was fully realistic, your mech would be one-shotted by self-guided drone fired from 150 kilometers away, or from orbit).

If you nerf the indirect nature of LRM's, all semblance and reason for "info warfare" will go out the window.. because it's LRMs that drive the need for "info".

Some people just can't seem to understand that..

Besides.. As far as I get it, ATMs will be, pretty much, exactly what OP describes? So why nerf LRMs now?

So I am wholeheartedly against nerfing LRMs and against buffing them.. LRMs are fine the way they are..

Guile Votoms, on 31 May 2017 - 03:37 AM, said:

The main problem of LRMs is that they promote a bad playstyle; the backseat assault lurmboat.

Da f**ck dude?

Promote a "bad playstyle"?!

1) Who in the hell do you think you are to call ANY playstyle "bad". If somebody likes to play a direwolf with LRMs and has fun that way, who gives you the right to tell them they shouldn't?

2) If Assaults should not have LRMs, than why do some come with LRMs in their stock loadouts?

3) Please realize that not everybody plays YOUR way, and neither they should.. People are different.. and play THEIR way.. A LRM boat pilot is not telling you that you should not use lasers or PPCs.. so what gives you the right to be holier than thou?

4) See, it is because of people that have comments like these is why we have most of the problems in the world.. why there is only one right skin color, only 1 right religion, only 1 right race.. Seriously dude.. embace diversity, live and let live..

5) If people play a backseat assault LRM boat, and are good at it, and are having fun, why is that bad? if they are not good at it, they will realize it's not for them and move on to some other playstyle.. You being salty about it will ONLY MAKE THEM LURM HARDER JUST TO SPITE YOU!

6) Adapt, survive, thrive.

Edited by Vellron2005, 31 May 2017 - 03:57 AM.

[Dago Red]

Guile Votoms, on 31 May 2017 - 03:37 AM, said:

Give them massive spread and low velocity when they're used with regular locks.
Massively buff Narc, Tag and Artemis.
Done.

The main problem of LRMs is that they promote a bad playstyle; the backseat assault lurmboat.

If you make LRMs weak with regular locks but powerful with a proper spotter or self-held locks,
players will either drop the playstyle completely or adapt and become decent players.

I've played Narcers for a while but no one cares. They just take whatever lock they see.

And yes, I know that LRMs are not a reliable weapon and it's a gamble to use them without a dedicated spotter,
but as long as puggers can get 1000+ damage without Narc, Tag and Artemis in 1 out of 5 matches, nothing will change.

I don't get this at all. I mean yeah if half your team is trying to hide behind each other and begging for locks it's a problem but when I'm brawling ( so like 80% of the time) there's nothing I love more than a little rain on whoever I'm locked in with.